I may be obsessing over all things America at the moment. But I have to say that there is a painful similarity emerging between American Democrats and mainstream British Labour: moderation for moderation’s sake.
The Rachel Reeves doctrine of adhering to Conservative fiscal principles may be a theoretical guarantor of stability – appeasing investors and consumers alike. But since the fall of New Labour this country’s political leaders are too wary about borrowing. It was the bogeyman conjured up by the Conservatives in the run-up to and during the coalition years (an attempt to characterise the Conservatives as the authority on all things economy). And it was effective: the Tories had an uninterrupted lead on the subject for fourteen years. Labour could not regain credibility on the subject, and it was because they let the Conservatives write their story.
And here is the American parallel: Kamala Harris's proposal to ban price gouging at a national level is aimed squarely at the median American voter, anxious about the cost of living. Economists are dubious about its efficacy but it is, at least, an attempt at change. However, since big name Republican social media channels have labelled the proposal "communist" the Democrats have been muted. A progressive columnist for the Washington Post wrote: “when your opponent calls you communist, maybe don’t propose price controls”.
The communist jibe has shaken Democrats (who are more afraid of Republican messaging than alienating middle America). Anxious about such ad hominems, the Democrats are running in fear of a phantom rather than providing solutions to price rises. Price gouging policy has most enthusiasm among US swing voters, making Harris's overture good politics. But instead, they let the Republicans set the terms.
The problem with progressives today is that they operate out of fear, especially from their opponent's messaging. Labour's inability to marshal an effective strategy to manage the shock of ending winter fuel payments, for example, is an error of rookie calibre.
In a period of financial anxiety for voters, most prefer the optics of stability. But on closer inspection of public opinion we see that the electorate is not content with the economic status quo in the first place. They wish to preserve and maintain whatever income they have (something the Corbyn project failed to appreciate) but they still clamour for change. The Reeves proposals to limit borrowing capacity - which emerges, in part, from Conservative attack lines - will stymie that change. This is moderation for moderation's sake. But with a majority this deep, and with the spectre of the populism to contend with, this is not the time to be moderate.
[See also: Rachel Reeves casts herself as the anti-Osborne]
Content from our partners
Related
